# C_2007269EN.01003701.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/37

---

Appeal brought on 18 September 2007 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2007 in Case T-475/04 Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission

(Case C-431/07 P)

(2007/C 269/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile, A. Bénabent, J. Vogel and L. Vogel, lawyers)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, Société française de radiotéléphonie — SFR, Orange France SA

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the judgment delivered on 4 July 2007 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-475/04 Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment delivered on 4 July 2007 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-475/04 Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission;

Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA

Commission

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration in the light of the legal views expressed by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration in the light of the legal views expressed by the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants raise four pleas in law in support of their appeal:

By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Court of First Instance failed in its duty to state reasons in holding that the debt waiver at issue in the present case was inevitable due to the ‘the logic of the system’. Since the latter in fact constitutes a rule derogating from the principle that differential treatment of a number of companies necessarily constitutes a selective advantage, the Court should have given clear reasons both for the content of the logic of the system to which it refers and the causal link between the logic of the system and the established waiver of State resources.

By their second plea, the applicants then claim that the Court erred in law in considering that the Commission was not under an obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure on the sole ground that the examination of the substance of the case showed, in its view, that an advantage for Orange and SFR had not been proven. Initiation of the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC is in fact justified each time the Commission is unable to ascertain, in the light of the evidence in its possession during the preliminary examination phase, whether or not a measure is compatible with the rules of the Treaty.

By their third plea, the applicants criticise three errors made by the Court relating to the legal assessment of the facts, as regards, first, the alleged unicity of the procedures for awarding UMTS licences, secondly, the so-called uncertain nature of the debts waived by the State, and thirdly, the wording of the ministerial letter of 22 February 2001, which contained the assurance that the economic operators would be treated fairly but not equally.

By their fourth plea, the applicants maintain that the Court committed several errors of law in applying Article 87(1) EC. Those errors relate, respectively, to the application of the exception based on the logic of the scheme, the appraisal of the (in)existence of a competitive advantage and the application of the principle of non-discrimination.

---